I am not a white nationalist. However, judging by the comments on the Ian Smith elegy, some of my readers are. For this week, I was going to put up another post in the Dawkins series, but Thanksgiving is coming and traffic should be light, so I thought it might be fun to wade into this wretched hive of scum and villainy.

(The Internet is also home to many out-and-out racist blogs. Most are simply unreadable. But some are hosted by relatively capable writers, such as "The Uhuru Guru" or "Big Effer." On these racist blogs you'll find racial epithets, anti-Semitism (see why I am not an anti-Semite) and the like. Obviously, I cannot recommend any of these blogs, and nor will I link to them. However, if you are interested in the mind of the modern racist, Google will get you there.)

What is white nationalism, anyway? I'd say a white nationalist is someone who believes that whites should act collectively to further their collective interests. Much as, say, a French nationalist believes that Frenchmen should act collectively etc.

It is nontrivial to define the word "white." It is also nontrivial to define the word "French." However, "nationalist" seems pretty clear. Note that its root is the Latin natus, birth - the association between "nation" and State is not universal. In the Soviet Union, a Soviet citizen might be of Russian, Jewish, Kazakh, etc, nationality. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were thoroughly multinational governments, and the former categorized its citizens by a credal concept of nationality with no place at all for geographism.

This is rather academic. Another approach is to say that white nationalism is what people who call themselves "white nationalists" believe. John Savage has a good link summary, featuring a friendly debate between Steve Sailer (who is perhaps best classified as a Sailerist, a label I'm not at all afraid to stick on my shirt) and the editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor.

(It's also worth mentioning the still-ongoing LGF versus Brussels Journal food fight. Since I am neither a neocon nor a paleocon nor a conservative at all, I feel no need to take a side. In my opinion, both are right and both are wrong. Hopefully, by the end of this essay, my take should be obvious.)

Perhaps the best summary of the white nationalist case I've seen, however, is this essay by the Norwegian blogger known only as Fjordman. Fjordman is not a terribly eloquent wordsmith - at least, not in English - but he has a lot to say, and the essay is worth reading. (If you are interested in a weird, overheated '70s novelization of the same issues, you might enjoy the Great Racist Novel, Jean Raspail's appalling Camp of the Saints.)

It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff. Maybe this doesn't need defending. But I feel the urge to defend it anyway.

One (tangential) comment on the Smith elegy used the phrase "red flags." While I hate to strike the as-I-was pose - I have no idea who the commenter is, or why he or she feels this way - I have a pretty good memory of when I might have said the same thing. The first time I was linked to VDare, I had exactly this response. (In fact, the first time I found myself staring at a Republican blog, I had this response. But that was a longer time ago.)

The sensation is visceral. It is the sense of the presence of evil - of the Adversary himself. I am not religious, but I do believe in evil. It is impossible to fight without believing one's enemies are, in some way, evil. To believe one can be above this feeling of pure revulsion and contempt is not to have advanced to a higher spiritual stage, but to be an arrogant prig.

However, without denying the concept of evil, we can investigate our own use of it.

Why does white nationalism strike us as evil? Because Hitler was a white nationalist, and Hitler was evil. Neither of these statements is remotely controvertible. There is exactly one degree of separation between white nationalism and evil. And that degree is Hitler. Let me repeat: Hitler.

The argument seems watertight. (Hitlertight?) But it holds no water at all.

Why does socialism strike us as evil? Because Stalin was a socialist, and Stalin was evil. Anyone who wants to seriously argue that Stalin was less evil than Hitler has an awful long row to hoe. Not only did Stalin order more murders, his murder machine had its heyday in peacetime, whereas Hitler's can at least be seen as a war crime against enemy civilians. Whether this makes a difference can be debated, but if it does it puts Stalin on top.

And yet I have never had or seen anything like the "red flags" response to socialism. If I saw a crowd of young, fashionable people lining up at the box office for a hagiographic biopic on Reinhard Heydrich, chills would run up and down my neck. For Ernesto Guevara, I have no emotional response. Perhaps I think it's stupid and sad. I do think it's stupid and sad. But it doesn't freak me out.

Some friends of mine live on a street in Brooklyn where there is a Black Muslim storefront with TVs in the window, broadcasting Louis Farrakhan's Jew-hating black nationalism 24/7. To get from their compound to the subway, you need to go past a little taste of Rev. Louis. Should this freak me out? Should I see "red flags?"

Maybe I should. But I don't. And to make a conscious effort to change this would put me in the odd position of cultivating hatred. When I ask myself what Albert Jay Nock would do, somehow this doesn't seem quite the answer.

If you consciously endorse the method of guilt by association that makes any conceivable connection to Nazism taboo, you base this endorsement on moral grounds, and you believe in uniform moral standards, you have to apply the same method to Communism as well. Which means you must adopt a level of fanatical McCarthyism that would make Roy Cohn blush. While the result may be logically consistent, does it serve your interests? Or anyone else's?

So my conclusion is that the only way to restore balance and perspective, and escape from the Blank Slate Asymmetry, is to suppress the little voice in my head that pops up and says "Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!" Your mileage, as usual, may vary.

So this is one reason not to not be a white nationalist. There are a few such. And I feel I ought to work through them all, before explaining why I am actually not a white nationalist.

A slightly more sophisticated version of the Hitler argument is to argue that white nationalism is evil not because of what white nationalists did in the past, but because of what they might do in the future. In other words, the problem with white nationalism is that it is dangerous.

This is true in a certain sense. But it demonstrates a rather staggering failure of proportion.

Cute little bunnies are dangerous. They could hop onto your face while you sleep, and smother you. I'm sure human history records at least one death by bunny attack. And even if it doesn't, there's always a first.

It makes no sense to evaluate danger on an absolute scale. One must compare. Cute little bunnies pose a nonzero threat. They are certainly not as dangerous as leopards.

So what makes white nationalists so dangerous? How many Americans are killed by white nationalists every year? More than by cute little bunnies, I'm sure. More than cougars? Maybe. More than bees? Certainly not.

On the other hand, cougars and bees can't seize power and establish a genocidal totalitarian state. Whereas white nationalists could.

But so could black nationalists, Mexican nationalists, white environmentalists, anarchists, animal-rights activists, etc, etc. (Watch the movie Your Mommy Kills Animals sometime. It really does take a lot to send chills down my spine, but Kevin Kjonaas did it. The animal-rights people have a marvelous moral rationale for violence and even murder, and damned if they don't use it.)

The thing about all the ideologies on this random little list is that every single one is fashionable. No one is expelled from polite society for holding them. Au contraire. In many chic contexts, they are actually social lubricants. They certainly attract talented and ambitious young people, which is pretty much a necessity if you want to seize any kind of power.

There are entire departments at every university in the US which teach black and Mexican nationalism - not to mention the other three. A few blocks from where I live, on one of the most fashionable shopping streets in the entire world, there is an anarchist bookstore. Its window is full of books advocating violence, tyranny and terror of every kind. Etc, etc.

And Nazism too was fashionable. Indeed it was profoundly self-righteous. Perhaps the easiest way for a modern American or European to understand Nazism is to understand that a good Brown thought about preserving the Deutsche Volk in exactly the same way that today's Greens think about preserving the Environment. (Not, indeed, without some overlap.) In a world where this book is a bestseller, who is the leopard and who the bunny-rabbit?

White nationalism is the most marginalized and socially excluded belief system in the history of the world. It is an obnoxious social irritant in any circle which does not include tattooed speedfreak bikers. The idea that a white-nationalist conspiracy is lurking behind the curtain, ready to seize power in one terrible spring, really does make anti-Semitism look plausible. What's next, the KKK and Snapple? The Protocols of the Elders of Idaho?

So we see that, at present, in the real world of 2007, there is no coherent moral or practical reason to shun white nationalism.

Or is there? I can imagine one possibility which might make white nationalism genuinely dangerous. White nationalism would be dangerous if there was some issue on which white nationalists were right, and everyone else was wrong. Truth is always dangerous. Contrary to common belief, it does not always prevail. But it's always a bad idea to turn your back on it.

Here at last is our leopard. But could this be a reason to shun and ignore white nationalism? It is precisely the opposite. It is (or would be) a reason to investigate and understand it.

Say hello to the very courageous William Saletan. Mr. Saletan, following Amy Harmon, believes there is indeed a leopard. The leopard's name is human cognitive biodiversity. While the evidence for human cognitive biodiversity is indeed debatable, what's not debatable is that it is debatable. Since it's also the case that everyone who is not a white nationalist has spent the last 50 years informing us that it is not debatable, we have our leopard one way or another.

If you don't want Mr. Saletan and Ms. Harmon's courage to go unrewarded, perhaps you should consider reporting Slate and the New York Times to the SPLC Intelligence Project. Contact them using this form. You could also try the NAACP. After all, what fun is it to stick your neck out, if no one tries to cut it off? Can't you always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back?

Mr. Saletan seems to genuinely believe that an admission of honest error, and a few nice noises about the future, can extract the entire system of power and privilege he represents from the remarkable corner it's painted itself into.

Unfortunately, the obscure doctrinal point on which he is admitting error is the most fundamental belief of his society. It is the political mortar of the postwar Western world. It can no more be admitted than the Soviets could admit that capitalism was the best thing for the working class after all. (I'm still not quite sure how the Chinese get away with this.)

Of course, I am not a white nationalist. I am not arguing that you should be a white nationalist. I am just suggesting that there are many bad reasons not to be a white nationalist.

And there is one more. You could not be a white nationalist because you believed that the problems white nationalists worry about are not serious or important.

This is just a hoot. Suppose you are an alien and you are observing a country X which contains two classes of people, which we'll call A and B. You observe the following:

Every year, thousands of people of class B are attacked, raped and killed by people of class A. The converse is extremely rare - at least, rare enough to be a cause celebre. (BTW, I love the argument that class-A people attack, rape and kill other class-A people as well. As though this were some great saving grace.)

Large areas of X, including entire major cities, have been ethnically cleansed by the departure of class-B people fleeing class-A violence.

Versus class-As, class-Bs are systematically disfavored in competition for educational and professional positions.

Many, even most, people of class A accept a canonical ideology which justifies this situation as a moral response to unidentifiable, irreparable, and ancient wrongs, and appears to motivate ongoing attacks, which are often defended by responsible authorities. In fact, the belief that it is actually the class-Bs who are oppressing the class-As is widespread.

While class-Bs are a numerical majority in some regions, they are a substantial minority on the entire planet. Many respectable and influential people advocate the abolition of all migration controls worldwide, leaving the class-As in a perfect position to extend their theory of violence to a policy of global conquest and destruction. While this is not about to happen tomorrow, over the next century it is quite plausible.

Now. Would you, as a responsible alien obeying all directives for diplomatic communication with primitive planets, suggest to the class-Bs that there was some other problem that they should be worrying about instead? Something more important? Something even scarier? Such as, oh, I don't know, unusually warm weather?

I am not a white nationalist because I don't find white nationalism useful or effective. I don't feel it helps me accurately perceive reality. In fact, I think it distorts reality. And I believe white nationalism is a very ineffective political device for solving the very real problems about which it complains.

If you haven't read the Fjordman piece I linked above, now would be an excellent time to do so. (Yes, the site loads very slowly.) Now, compare Fjordman's white-nationalist analysis of this problem to mine.

In Fjordman's model, we see two groups: White and Swarthy. White people, or at least some of them, are gripped by some mysterious masochistic urge to self-destruction. If Whites unite, accept even just the slightest touch of White nationalism, and act collectively, they can defeat the anti-White neo-Communist Swarthy jihad that otherwise threatens to devour them all.

In my model, there are not two sides but five. Three of these sides are white, two are swarthy. And we see no mysterious masochism at all, just the usual hominid struggle for factional dominance. One of the white parties (Brahmin) is ganging up with the two swarthy parties (Dalit, Helot) to apply a good old-fashioned whupping to the other two white parties (Vaisya, Optimate). Just another afternoon of nasty on the History Channel.

Not only does my model clarify the reality, it clarifies the tactical options. We see immediately that Fjordman is asking the impossible. His solution is simply for the B faction to dump its DH allies and unite with its OV victims. The lion will lie down with the lamb. Yeah, right! Perhaps Fjordman could be so kind as to inform us of the last occasion on which this worked.

Now, it's certainly likely that if the BDH alliance triumphs entirely and manages to wipe out all remnants of the OVs, the DHes will just have the Bs for breakfast. Judith Todd could tell you all about it. But has she recanted? Not even. By and large, the Brahmins are absolutely sincere. And since they are the ruling class, their ability to ignore reality is almost unlimited.

And, more to the point, what is the one ideology least likely to convince them to change their nefarious ways? What is the system of thought that Brahmins are most powerfully inoculated against? White nationalism! It's a strategy that couldn't be better designed to fail. It is almost eerie in its profound and incurable ineffectiveness.

There is another way to see white nationalism: as a strategy to motivate the OVs to rise up, cast aside their false consciousness, and throw off the Brahmin yoke.

If it's possible, this is an even worse idea than the lie-down-with-the-lion plan. What was the Second World War, if not an OV rebellion? Did it work? Even if it had worked, would it have been an improvement? Um...

Some of the most fascinating phenomena of postwar history are the rare attempts at actual military defiance of Universalist rule. These include the OAS in Algeria, the AWB in South Africa, and of course the Rhodesian and old South African regimes. Possibly the American Patriot movement counts as well. All these efforts have one thing in common: they were all spectacular failures.

The OAS is typical. What happened with the OAS is that they actually believed the great lie of the last half-century: that an insurgent movement with popular support cannot be defeated. The OAS was made up of French soldiers who had fought against a real insurgency, the FLN, defeated it, and therefore believed they could play the same game only better.

Of course they got their asses kicked, because terrorist or guerrilla movements cannot succeed of their own accord. They are only effective auxiliaries to an internal political conflict within a conventional state. The OAS had some political support in France, but not much, and not nearly as much as the FLN. No one was inventing creative explanations as to why France should go easy on them, buy them off with concessions, open peace talks, etc, etc. So the OAS lost and the pieds-noirs were expelled from Algeria, in a sort of operatic, Mediterranean Operation Wetback. "Non... je ne regrette rien."

I won't bore you with the story of the AWB. It is far more sordid and pathetic. And no doubt, if the Rhodesians had actually resorted to armed resistance in 1980, they would have been crushed as well. Probably the same thing would have happened to the Afrikaners in time. It may seem to us that they had a real choice in 1994, but how long would that choice have lasted? They had been folding in slow motion ever since the assassination of Verwoerd.

The problem with white nationalism as a military or political strategy (of course there is no line between the two - if your goal is to capture the government, your goal is to capture the government) is that however much it may manage to fire up the OVs, it fires up the Brahmins ten times as much. Since the latter are the ruling class and hold the whip hand, white nationalism remains a losing strategy. Ouch! Taste the pain, kids.

See also the anti-Semitic species of white nationalism. While a blatant misperception of reality, it at least identifies the fact that not all white people are on the same side. But, by describing its enemy as a basically-nonexistent ethnic-nationalist mafia, rather than a nontheistic Christian sect (which happens to have effectively assimilated many Reform Jews), anti-Semitism ensures that it can only score a hit by missing what it aims at. D'oh. And, needless to say, any remedies that anti-Semites may propose are, um, ineffective at best.

This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, and you will not come up with any productive strategy for collective action, white or otherwise.

At its best, white nationalism offers a sensible description of a general problem. This problem certainly exists, and it falls under the larger category of bad government. (If allowing the old cities of North America to be overrun and rendered largely uninhabitable by murderous racist gangs isn't bad government, really, I'm not sure what is.)

But white nationalism offers no formula at all for how to transition from bad government to good government. Indeed, to the extent that white nationalism succeeds in anything, it motivates its enemies, keeping everyone stuck in the same old destructive patterns.

And the worst thing about white nationalism, in my opinion, is just that it's nationalism. Nationalism is really another word for democracy - the concept of democracy makes no sense except as an algorithm for determining the General Will of the People, that is, the Nation. And whatever its electoral formula or lack thereof, every nationalist government has seen itself as in some sense a representative of the Volk.

Compare this to the world of the ancien regime, in which French aristocrats had far more in common with Russian aristocrats than with French peasants. The world before nationalism and democracy was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom, and civilized high culture. Let architecture be the judge: all buildings from the 18th century are treasures. So are most from the 19th. The 20th was the age of nationalism, democracy, tyranny, mass murder, and gigantic concrete eyesores. (I live within walking distance of not one but two hospitals which are dead ringers for any Bulgarian secret-police headquarters. Although on reflection this is probably an insult to Bulgaria.)

Note that, before the coming of nationalist democracy, it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If the mob wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them. It was not Louis XVI's fictitious oppressions that doomed him to the implacable vengeance of the People, but his irresolution and gullibility that drew him to the deadly Anglo-American fad of popular government. (Try this history if you're unconvinced.)

The task of restoring the old world is immense. It may not be solvable. It certainly demands the eradication of all present governing institutions, a fate they seem not at all inclined to acquiesce in. But they are after all democratic, and for democracy to abolish itself is no paradox but a triumph - the only really satisfying way to terminate the whole great cult.

Universalism itself is a kind of nationalism. Of racism, even. It accepts only one nation: the entire planet. It knows only one race: the human race. Reading these sentences, any Universalist will nod his head and smile at the unsurpassable beauty of his own faith. Which in fact is unsurpassed only in its potential for gigantic and diabolical evil. As Nock put it, people who believe in world government are like people who believe that if a teaspoon of cyanide will kill you, a whole bottle is just the thing to do you good.

But you can't beat one fiction with another. The cure for Universalism is not the creed that Universalism hates most. It is a clear and simple understanding of the real principles of political, economic and military organization in human societies. White nationalism, like any nationalism, is a romantic and fictitious idealization of social reality. While it may bring some clarity to these principles, it obscures far more than it reveals.

But we can't go back to the 18th C nor should we want to - nearly everyone was starving nearly all the time. The suffering was immense and intractable except via more suffering from war or disease (see A Farewell to Alms - by Gregory Clark for the latest account).

How to break free of the stasis you describe? - I don't know, nor do I need to know - because modernizing society is a vast cognitive organism that will _probably_ solve the problem just the same way markets solve problems of distribution (blindly, messily, wastefully - but effectively).

"Note that, before the coming of nationalist democracy, it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved"

White nationalism is the most marginalized and socially excluded belief system in the history of the world.

. . .

White nationalism would be dangerous if there was some issue on which white nationalists were right, and everyone else was wrong.

. . .

While the evidence for human cognitive biodiversity is indeed debatable, what's not debatable is that it is debatable. Since it's also the case that everyone who is not a white nationalist has spent the last 50 years informing us that it is not debatable, we have our leopard one way or another.

. . .

Suppose you are an alien and you are observing a country X which contains two classes of people, which we'll call A and B. You observe the following:

Every year, thousands of people of class B are attacked, raped and killed by people of class A. The converse is extremely rare - at least, rare enough to be a cause celebre.

. . .

I am not a white nationalist because I don't find white nationalism useful or effective. I don't feel it helps me accurately perceive reality. In fact, I think it distorts reality. And I believe white nationalism is a very ineffective political device for solving the very real problems about which it complains.

. . .

And, more to the point, what is the one ideology least likely to convince them to change their nefarious ways? What is the system of thought that Brahmins are most powerfully inoculated against? White nationalism! It's a strategy that couldn't be better designed to fail.

. . .

See also the anti-Semitic species of white nationalism. While a blatant misperception of reality, it at least identifies the fact that not all white people are on the same side. But, by describing its enemy as a basically-nonexistent ethnic-nationalist mafia, rather than a nontheistic Christian sect (which happens to have effectively assimilated many Reform Jews), anti-Semitism ensures that it can only score a hit by missing what it aims at. D'oh. And, needless to say, any remedies that anti-Semites may propose are, um, ineffective at best.

This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program.

. . .

But you can't beat one fiction with another. The cure for Universalism is not the creed that Universalism hates most. It is a clear and simple understanding of the real principles of political, economic and military organization in human societies. White nationalism, like any nationalism, is a romantic and fictitious idealization of social reality. While it may bring some clarity to these principles, it obscures far more than it reveals.

You seem conflicted. On the one hand you are honest enough to admit that on the very critical issue of race WNs have been correct. You admit that they are, in spite of this, abnormally vilified.

"Not all white people are on the same side."

That's quite an understatement. The deracinated attitudes of most whites is quite contrary to the biological trends that were necessary to have created such a race of accumulated regressive genes to begin with. What force counters that biology?

What anti-semites say is perhaps it is that some of the most powerful people in what you call class B don't actually see themselves as class B, they see themselves as class J. And this class controls to an extremely disproportionate degree the mechanisms by which class A is exalted and protected and class B is degraded and blamed. That sounds far more reasonable to me than ignoring the existence of a class J and saying anyone who sees them is crazy.

Denial is not reason. As long as you do not address the Jewish Question you will never have the "clear and simple understanding of the real principles of political, economic and military organization in human societies" you seek.

You seem to be interested in the truth. You wrote a few posts back that you don't think government should require a reality distortion field to protect itself. I concur.

The reality distortion field of our times is political correctness. Who creates that PC and who defies it? White nationalists, including the anti-semites, provide a cure for Universalism: the cure is truth. The cleansing power of exposure to daylight. Information, and the freedom to exchange it and discuss it.

If you simply deny disproportionate Jewish control of the media and finance you are no better than the race deniers and no closer to understanding the world than they are. BTW, not all of the deniers take their position out of ignorance. Many, including Saletan, have been engaging in dissimulation. They understand the world very well. They just hope their competitors will stay in the dark.

One (tangential) comment on the Smith elegy used the phrase "red flags." While I hate to strike the as-I-was pose - I have no idea who the commenter is, or why he or she feels this wayI was the one who said it, and I was not there saying anything negative about white nationalism, only that tanstaafl's previous comments should have made his position obvious to chairmank. I happen to dislike tanstaafl, but I don't have the same animus for Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald and that is because they are not buffoons.

Hitler was a white nationalistNo, not too many non-whites were harmed by Hitler. He was a German nationalist, and I think this is an important point. The German people had something shared (language, culture, whatever), so even if Stirner scoffed at the notion the possibility of German nationalism uniting the divided statelets was there. Whites are not a nation, they are a race (or sub-race of Caucasoids you might argue). White nationalism would seem to imply unity among Americans, Canadians, Australians (even though they all share the same language I don't find that likely), French, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Swedes, Russians, Poles, Romanians, Serbs, Croatians, Albanians (is anyone seriously going to argue they aren't white?), Armenians and possibly even Iranians (they renamed their country from Persia to their word for "Aryan" partially because they were so chummy with the Nazis). You might argue that Austria stayed separate from Germany, and though that is true it is because Bismarck was really a crafty Prussian Junker rather than German nationalist. Hitler really was one and hence the Anschluss.

The animal-rights people have a marvelous moral rationale for violence and even murder, and damned if they don't use it.I thought we agreed earlier that he, like Varg Vikernes, is an anomaly.

Unfortunately, the obscure doctrinal point on which he is admitting error is the most fundamental belief of his society.That seems a gross exaggeration. I think advocates of capitalism fared far worse in the Soviet Union than Charles Murray does here. Rushton even got rather respectfully interviewed on NPR and Gottfredson has been contributing to the latest Cato Unbound.

Every year, thousands of people of class B are attacked, raped and killed by people of class A.Thousands out of a much larger population. People of class B are extremely unlikely to die violent deaths. Automobiles and fast food are way bigger killers.

Large areas of X, including entire major cities, have been ethnically cleansed by the departure of class-B people fleeing class-A violence.Other than Detroit, where? And Detroit was gong to decline with the rest of the Rust Belt anyway.

Such as, oh, I don't know, unusually warm weather?I don't think it implausible that global warming will kill more people than black-on-white crime in the time span from now until another century. What I do think implausible is the connection between the two. PC was just as successful before anyone heard of global warming.

White people, or at least some of them, are gripped by some mysterious masochistic urge to self-destruction. If Whites unite, accept even just the slightest touch of White nationalism, and act collectively, they can defeat the anti-White neo-Communist Swarthy jihad that otherwise threatens to devour them all.Matthew Yglesias refers to this as the Green Lantern theory. Like Julian Sanchez, I think it applies just as well to the left. I think all this unity and awareness talk just makes people feel good but doesn't accomplish much.

His solution is simply for the B faction to dump its DH allies and unite with its OV victims. The lion will lie down with the lamb. Yeah, right! Perhaps Fjordman could be so kind as to inform us of the last occasion on which this worked.I don't actually know why that would should be a less sensible alliance.

All these efforts have one thing in common: they were all spectacular failures.Weren't a number of latin american and east asian ones rather succesful in staving off communism and having a decent transition to democracy?

The OAS had some political support in France, but not much, and not nearly as much as the FLN.I don't think so. The OAS was powerful enough to attempt a coup in France, the FLN could have never carried that out. As the movie "The Battle of Algiers" (which you can find from here) points out, even the communist press started out in favor of crushing the revolt. It was the genuine threat the OAS posed to the French government that resulted in it being crushed.

And no doubt, if the Rhodesians had actually resorted to armed resistance in 1980, they would have been crushed as well.By whom? They had already been independent of Britain for some time.

If allowing the old cities of North America to be overrun and rendered largely uninhabitable by murderous racist gangs isn't bad government, really, I'm not sure what is.)Once again, that seems an extreme exaggeration. Not only do plenty of white people still live in the cities, large numbers of immigrants move there which include not only gang-banging hispanics but meek asians.

I think you exaggerate how great the past was. Read Greg Clark or Stephen Pinker (perhaps Douglas North as well). I discuss some of that in this post.

The deracinated attitudes of most whites is quite contrary to the biological trends that were necessary to have created such a race of accumulated regressive genes to begin with.I don't think you know a damn thing about evolutionary biology.

What anti-semites say is perhaps it is that some of the most powerful people in what you call class B don't actually see themselves as class B, they see themselves as class J. And this class controls to an extremely disproportionate degree the mechanisms by which class A is exalted and protected and class B is degraded and blamed. That sounds far more reasonable to me than ignoring the existence of a class J and saying anyone who sees them is crazy.Mencius' point is that all the things you bemoan precede jewish influence which helps to explain why so many white gentiles are under the sway of Universalism.

White nationalists, including the anti-semites, provide a cure for Universalism: the cure is truth.You haven't cured it yet. When do you predict you will succeed in toppling Universalism?

If you simply deny disproportionate Jewish control of the media and financeI don't think anyone here has denied it.

Many, including Saletan, have been engaging in dissimulation.Point out something Saletan said that falls under that.

the objection to 'X' nationalism, i think, is that it's phobic (fear-based exclusivity); i hear not many complaints against anglophila or japanophilia* for instance. how does a system of social cohesion recommend itself when defined in the negative?

when one talks of 'communities of interest', along the lines of benedict anderson's discourses on nationalism, the situation becomes more tractable, imo (if only because it's less susceptible to distortions of "social reality"). it even allows for a return to the 18th C (via a neo-victorian 'phyle' ;)

i guess another (flawed) angle one can take is to equate western civilisation and white nationalism and its attendant (and inevitable) 'clash' with whomever, presumably (suitably) barbaric, in some series of ideological/religio-race wars, or what have you... one neglects to contend with _decency_ or, if one prefers, noblesse oblige; why do we fight? &c.

---* has anyone mentioned that UR now is a lot like steven den beste's USS Cluless in its heyday? cf. universalism and transnational progressivism...

btw, i used to comment occasionally on 2blowhards, but their latent white nationalism, or at least proclivities, became tiresome, so thanks for this!

White nationalists are wrong because they think a person's race is his most significant attribute and MM is wrong because he thinks a person's caste is. In reality, I have much more in common with my black, white, Indian, and Vietnamese neighbors than I do with a Haredi Jew living in Brooklyn or Barbara Streisand. I -- surely a Universalist, if anybody is -- am in no way at war with the Vaisyas or Optimates.

The problem with MM's view of the world is that it requires all of these millions of people to have strong allegiances they're unware of and to be waging (often indirect) war with other groups without even being aware that there is a war. MM thinks Vietnam was a proxy war between red and blue America, but wasn't it just a strategic mistake in the cold war?

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is an interesting theory about the unconscious beliefs of a society, everything looks like... this blog, I guess.

White nationalism is a misnomer not only when applied to Hitler, but also when discussing European nationalism in general. I'm willing to bet that most European languages don't even have a concept like "white nationalism" (except perhaps as a recent loan from English).

This is because in Europe, there is no such thing as white race. Europeans are Frenchmen, Poles, Danes, Spaniards and so on. European nationalists are generally hostile to the idea that there would be a common white race with identical interests. The EU hopes to create just such a pan-European nationalism, but except for a small elite, there is no support for it.

White race is an American thing. This is because in America there is an actual white race, in contrast to Europe. Of course white race has long existed as an intellectual construct in Europe, but only in America has it become flesh and blood when people from different European ethnic groups have fused into one white race.

In America white nationalism used to be an official, government-enforced ideology, but most European nations do not have this kind of racialist history. Only in America and some other European diasporic communities does the white race exist.

In my model, there are not two sides but five. Three of these sides are white, two are swarthy. And we see no mysterious masochism at all, just the usual hominid struggle for factional dominance. One of the white parties (Brahmin) is ganging up with the two swarthy parties (Dalit, Helot) to apply a good old-fashioned whupping to the other two white parties (Vaisya, Optimate). Just another afternoon of nasty on the History Channel.

Anonymous 5:55, I compared mm to den beste in one of my ealiest posts here (possibly even my first). If I didn't know better, sometimes I'd swear Steven had gotten over what ever the hell was wrong with him and was blogging again under a pseudonym. Hmmmm...how do you feel about Macs, Mencius? ;-)

Note that, before the coming of nationalist democracy, it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If the mob wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them. It was not Louis XVI's fictitious oppressions that doomed him to the implacable vengeance of the People, but his irresolution and gullibility that drew him to the deadly Anglo-American fad of popular government.

This view of the pre-industrial world is inexcusably rose tinted. People starved to death all the time. The Bourbons, Hohenzollerns, and Romanovs were every bit as rapacious as modern political parties. They sold political offices, other people's lands and debts, monopolies, and future tax revenues to extract as much money as they could from the populace in order to build palaces as larger and wage wars as broadly as the technology of the day allowed them to. They were never as bad as Stalin, and usually better than Mugabe, but the parts of the world today that most resemble the 18th century are shitholes you'd never want to visit. MM, I cannot comprehend how someone with as much history as you fails to understand how miserable things were before about 1900. The reason we can afford the massive universalist dead weight we carry becuase the average homless person in America is richer than Midas ever dreamed.

In America white nationalism used to be an official, government-enforced ideology, but most European nations do not have this kind of racialist history. Only in America and some other European diasporic communities does the white race exist.

Originally, nationalism was tied up with language. The idea was that all the people who spoke German or Italian were linked and should share a single state. As the 19th century closed, populist science (and specifically Darwinism) led to a slide towards race as mattering more than language, a transition which Hitler more or less completed.

America, lacking a lingustic minority but possessing a highly visible racial minority has historically pursued all sorts of kooky racial notions (see Liberia and Social Darwinism) so when it became fashionable to demonize nationalism the only "nation" worth demonizing in america was the "Whites."

White supremacy was official US policy for a long time (when or even if this has changed is debatable) but white nationalism was not.

He then mentions asabiya, acknowledges the Torah is full of it, but then claims that the ultracalvinist super-Protestants who created Universalism assimilated the Jews who came to the US. In spite of Jewish asabiya or because the Christian asabiya was more strong - he doesn't say.

It's not that MM doesn't see Jewish influence. He linked this paper and says he sides with Derbyshire, whose position MacDonald summarizes as:

Jews have made wonderful contributions to civilization. Therefore, non-Jews should welcome Jewish efforts to advance their interests even when they conflict with their own.

In this essay MM says this:

While a blatant misperception of reality, it at least identifies the fact that not all white people are on the same side. But, by describing its enemy as a basically-nonexistent ethnic-nationalist mafia, rather than a nontheistic Christian sect (which happens to have effectively assimilated many Reform Jews), anti-Semitism ensures that it can only score a hit by missing what it aims at. D'oh.

He takes his conclusion as a premise. The ethnic-nationalist mafia does not exist, therefore d'oh.

I would like someone, preferably MM, to fit Jewish power today, eg. this, into the explanation of how the Universalist world works, rather than just denying it is relevant.

I believe it is part of his group's conscious strategy to weaken other groups, especially Whites

While there might arguably exist some kind of group consciousness of which individual members of the group are not aware of (I don't believe this, but only because of Occam's razor), there is definitely no such conscious strategy on the individual level that I know of, even though I am as Jewish as it comes. Of course, you might say that I am also part of the grand conspiracy of Jews and I am consciously lying to you here, but I hope, we are above this.

I find MM's definition of white nationalism rather different from what I have envisioned this term to mean. For me, "white nationalism" implies an aspiration toward a nation formed along racial lines, i.e. an exclusively white nation.

In certain ways, I see such racial nationalism, white or otherwise, as bearing some interesting parallels to Marxism.

First, each posits a transcendent paradise which will, after long, titanic struggle, someday be attained. In other words, a Collective Heaven. Therefore, by my definition, American white nationalists, or for that matter, black nationalists, need not be working at this moment on specific means to attain the ultimate end of a "racially pure" state. In fact, they rarely focus their most intense efforts on this goal because it is always out there, on the distant horizon, waiting to someday, someday, be achieved (a rather Gatsby-like quest).

The second parallel to Marxism is the distinction between dignosis and prescription. Marx's diagnosis of the ills of 19th century capitalism was - whatever you may think of Marx - infinitely more perceptive and realistic than his prescription for eliminating these ills.

One point which I believe MM acknowledges in this post is that, while white nationalists may accurately define certain ills of contemporary society, their prescription is ultimately useless, if not delusional.

I suspect that most of us who are not white nationalists aren't because we find people whom we define as white nationalists to be creepy, disturbing, and repellent. Some might argue that this is the result of universalist conditioning, but I would say that those individuals who fit my defintion of white nationalists do strike me as the kind of people who would, sooner or later, get around to bullying, suppressing or terrorizing lots of innocent people, including nice goyish, Mayflower-type crackers like me.

Which is not to say that I favor an infinitely multi-cultural state. I suppose I favor a sober estimation of the realities of human nature. In an environment of increasing ethnic diversity, and in one which actively encourages minority-group identification, it is hardly surprising that politics, law, education, and culture become increasingly riven by competing ethnic agendas. It would be rather amazing if it were otherwise.

As for the "Jew or not a Jew"* debate regarding the origins of universalism, perhaps one could split the difference and say that universalism is the offspring of the secular Calvinism found indigenously on the eastern Seaboard among the proto-Brahminate, and the Marxism brought over in steerage among early 20th century Central and Eastern European immigrants, a great many of whom were Jews.

Your obtuseness is wearing thin. If you don't understand what I'm saying it would be more honest and productive to simply say so rather than accusing me of being ignorant.Before you said "The deracinated attitudes of most whites is quite contrary to the biological trends that were necessary to have created such a race of accumulated regressive genes to begin with". All that is necessary to create a race is geographic separation to induce inbreeding for a substantial period of time. It is perfectly compatible with a deracinated attitude. You seem to imply an important role for group selection, which is insignificant in the face of individual or gene-level selection.

That sounds far more reasonable to me than ignoring the existence of a class J and saying anyone who sees them is crazy.Moldbug's point is that they are part of a larger class, the Brahmins, though I don't think the ultra-orthodox would qualify. Furthermore, it seems to me that all the harm class A is supposed to inflict on class B falls just as much on the Brahmins, including your class J. It was said that a neoconservative was a liberal who'd been mugged, and for the first generation of neocons that was often literally true. They are also just as penalized by affirmative action policies.

No, that's your point.I don't fully buy into the Moldbuggian worldview. I see what is happening as the result of historical-material forces that Joseph Schumpeter and Brink Lindsey have discussed rather than some lineage of ideas. I was attempting to give my paraphrase of his writings, and if my interpretation was incorrect I would ask that he correct it.

how does MM address the question of Jewish influence today?It seems to me he considers it a sub-category of the broader Brahmin/Universalist influence.

He then mentions asabiya, acknowledges the Torah is full of it, but then claims that the ultracalvinist super-Protestants who created Universalism assimilated the Jews who came to the US.Hasidics still read the Torah and they are also the least Universalist of jews. American Catholics were basically turned into protestants, and jews were likewise. Jewish asabiya is pretty weak now, they have quite high intermarriage rates and their children tend to leave the flock.

He takes his conclusion as a premise. The ethnic-nationalist mafia does not exist, therefore d'oh.It's well established they have a lot of influence, as would be expected given their high verbal IQs. It isn't established that they form an ethnic-nationalist mafia distinct from the Brahmin caste MM has discussed.

I would like someone, preferably MM, to fit Jewish power today, eg. this,Still harping on a list created by Vanity Fair? You could do much better.

Saletan is a Jew, who married a Jew, who is proud of Jews and being a Jew, who tells us the solution to the world's race problems is to intermarry. In isolation it might be considered simple hypocrisy.I don't think so. He likely married years ago, and do you expect him to get divorced once he came to his realization about the genetic roots of IQ? Furthermore, recommending something on a large scale while behaving differently yourself is not sufficient to establish hypocrisy. I haven't heard Saletan denounce anyone for not intermarrying either, which makes me suspect that even at current rates where many do not intermarry the end result over the long term is homogenization.

I should note that in one of the articles you link to Entine says the jewish intermarriage rate is half a percent. That is true over the course of many centuries, but currently it is not. The majority of jews marry non-jews and the only ones who are keeping their numbers up are the non-Universalist ultra-orthodox.

I believe it is part of his group's conscious strategy to weaken other groups, especially WhitesJews count as whites in America. They get the same penalty with affirmative action and are not spared by underclass crime. The reason the first generation of neoconservatives were called "liberals who've been mugged" was that in that time it was often literally the case. You might say that because of their high-status they can shrug off such slights, but that is just as true of other Brahmins and whaddayaknow, non-jewish Brahmins behave the same way.

Vaguely apropos, here's an article about the downfall of the charming Senator Bilbo, and more generally how racist sentiment became unacceptable just after WWII (courtesy of the Judeo-Hispanic Matthew Yglesias). Maybe you'd enjoy it, particularly this part:

“News of Senator-Elect Theodore G. Bilbo’s death in New Orleans brought on unparalleledrejoicing throughout civilized America...bartendersthroughout the country [are] giving free drinks with which to toast theend of four decades of racial hatred."

"The basic difference between neocameralism and anarcho-capitalism is that I don't think this sort of self-enforcing property model scales militarily, at least not anywhere near to the level where individuals are sovereign." (Nov. 8)

I disagree that Hitler was a White Nationalist, and I don't think the distinction is mere pedantry either. Firstly, Hitler was not for "Whites" he was for Germans. Slavic people and even most Jews fall under the contemporary definition of "White" (using AmRen as a guide), and Hitler regarded both these groups as untermenschen. You could say this is meaningless, because WNs have a "Nazi-like" attitude, but merely define the "in-group" differently, but that would also be untrue.

There is a difference between the rapacious, imperialist nationalism (call it "supremacy") of the Nazis, and the isolationist, "sovereigntist" nationalism of paleo-conservatives and WNs. This is one reason I find the lazy identification of White Nationalism with "White Supremacy" by the mainstream media so irritating.

It seems patently unfair to deny the right to national independence and sovereignty to predominantly White European nations on the basis of the actions of the Nazis - which in fact violated the sovereignty of Germany's neighbours. It's like saying that the response to a thief (nationalist aggression against the sovereignty of other nations) should be to abolish property rights (nationalism). Sure, it gets rid of the problem, but it throws the baby out with the bathwater by destroying one of the moral goods that was attacked by the evil of Nazism. Nazis invaded other independent nations, so to stop this happening again we are going to abolish individual nations so there won't be any sovereignty and independence for future "Nazis" to threaten any more. That doesn't make sense.

Why are national independence movements in the third world granted moral legitimacy, whereas attempts to disengage from the globalist system by White nations termed "xenophobic", "hypernationalist" and "Nazistic"? Are we even granted the moral right to control our national destinies any more? I don't see any calls for militarisation, invasion of other nations or fantasies of world domination emanating from AmRen or any WN groups.

I am the owner of majorityrights.com, which is a Conservative-nationalist group blog of some size and reach. I think this must be the first time I have commented on this page, so I will open with a compliment to Mencius for his formidable intellectual product here.

Let me put down some markers which others have neglected.

Nationalism is not, of course, "just another word for democracy". It is a political expression of genetic interests. White nationalism is controversial in the liberal zeitgeist only because postmodernity, at a number of levels, is antipathetic to European genetic interests.

This antipathy is evil by any traditional understanding of the word. I guess that Mencius is just being provocative with his petty exploration of the "evil" of WN. As an ethical rule, genetic interests are not evil in themselves. They are inevitable. Without them we could not adapt to environment and survive as a species. They are, therefore, part of life. In that respect, WN is vivifying. Liberalism, elitist internationalism and, from a European genetic perspective, Jewish ethno-aggression are killing, however.

Here one needs to acknowledge that ethnic nepotism cuts both ways - preference for kind implies rejection of les etrangers. Racism is the natural corollary of self-love - familial love - and it is perfectly normal. But it is also evil from the subjective standpoint of the other.

Thus Jewish ethno-aggression is evil from a European/white American standpoint; and European/white American exclusion is evil from a diasporic Jewish standpoint.

Nature does not trouble itself with universal ethical truisms, only with the means to survive.

Generally, though, we hold today that peoples have the right to exist sovereign in their own homelands - in September the UN agreed the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The ethical weight, therefore, lies with the indigenes. Which means Europeans in Europe. The position of Europeans in America remains officially obscure.

Even so, they have a natural right to pursue their own genetic interests.

Mencius, the weight of politics and ethnic aggression directed against European-American genetic interests does not disqualify them. You are half-Jewish, but you are also half-European. I do not envy you, except that you are in a position to detach from the genetic gravity which pulls at other minds, and formulate a response on purely ethical grounds. What a luxury!

At present, you have failed miserably to rise to the invitation. You are only expressing Jewishness in diapsora. I ask you to think again.

Edict of Milan, toleration of Christianity in return for Christian support of, rather than resistance to, the Roman state.

*Theodosius:

Christianity now official and only tolerated Imperial religion as administrative supplement to disintegrating state apparatus.

*Clovis:

Adoption of Christianity in expanding Frankish realm in exchange for fifth-column services of clergy in enemy territory.

*Pepin:

Recognition of phony Donation of Constantine in exchange for Church blessing of Austrasian usurpation of Frankish crown.

*Otto the Great:

Holy Roman Empire relies upon an army of ecclesiastical knights, forming two-thirds of its ranks, to sustain the state in the midst offeudal disintegration elsewhere. Henry IV humiliated at Canossa when Gregory VII pronounces him excommunicate and thus without an army.

*William the Conqueror:

Norman Duchy relies upon a nucleus of three hundred ecclesiastical knights, granted in exchange for administrative and evangelical privileging of local episcopacies. Conquest of England otherwise impossible. English crown compromised administratively and ultimately decapitated.

*Cromwell:

Subsidized by Ben Israel in exchange for establishment and control of Bank of England. Jewry thus begins replacement of Church as indispensable prop of State.

*Bismarck:

Subsidized by Bleichroeder in "end run" around Frankfurt Assembly, which would not financially support ambitions for martial unification of German States.

*Woodrow Wilson:

American plutocracy saved from WJB's Populism by granting latter's desired central bank (Glass Act/Federal Reserve) while staffing with agents of very plutocracy to have been controlled by bank. Plan devised by agent of international Jewish banking interests in exchange for free hand in penetration of American institutions.

*Churchill:

Otherwise destitute, services are purchased by Focus in pursuit of international war against Third Reich.

*F. D. Roosevelt:

Felix Frankfurter staffs government with 200 "Happy Hotdogs" and so infests it with Soviet espionage agents, propangandists, Fifth Amendment cases, etc. Saves failing New Deal by persuading F.D.R. toward maneuvering Japanese into "Back door To War". Jewry thus has its desired expansion of Hitlerian Eastern campaign into World War and FDR has four Presidencies.

*G. W. Bush:

Presides over another "Pearl Harbor" arranged to accommodate Kosher-con PNAC blueprint, and destroys the regime and person of the current Hitler-du-jour under multiply false pretenses and in the service of an alien agenda.

You seem to miss the importance of recombination in genetics. Following your logic, you should marry your sister. Or better yet, order clones of yourself.

However, it is a curious (but, once you understand it, not very surprising) fact of evolution that all organisms that exist today are capable of self-reproduction through recombination and most are not capable of other means of self-reproduction.

Leaving the maximum amount of your genes to posterity is not achieved by the greedy algorithm of inbreeding or self-cloning, but by seeking mates that have properties that might help your offspring to survive and reproduce, even at the cost of having some genes different from yours

And even this is largely irrelevant, when it comes to humans. The total genome of a human being is about 2GB; it fits onto a writable DVD twice over. The amount of information that is carried in our brains and that influence our behavior and survival, while difficult to measure, is quite obviously more than what could be saved on a largish USB pendrive. Thus, the human behavioral patterns which are the true subjects of evolution are mostly outside of the genome.

Also, I find all these arguments over average and median IQ mostly beside the point. IQ variation between individuals is much larger than that. At any university campus one can find plenty of individuals with an IQ well over 130 of all races. Even if IQ is genetic, skin color is a very inaccurate predictor. Even if it correlates with IQ, other things (e.g. scores on IQ tests) show much stronger correlation.

Daniel A. Nagy, it is true that there is a great deal of variation by IQ so that skin color is an inaccurate predictor. However, the difference in means would result in statistical underrepresentation and overrepresentation of certain groups in certain areas (La Griffe du Lion explains how much more severe this would be in a pure IQ meritocracy here, here, here and here) which we are currently taught is the result of white racism/white supremacy. That's why it still seems relevant.

My analysis of caste structure indicates that the "Brahmins" are the "rulers" of the present instance only in the sense that they are merely the insensible chief administrators of the imbedded agenda/belief-system/myth-structure deviously planted and cultivated by our true governors, i.e., the Oligarchs of the same instance. My study of the logic and history of political economy affirms the Iron Law of Oligarchy, and elite Jewry seems to fill that bill in terms of the ethnic identity of said Oligarchy, in the aftermath of the cultural dispossession of the exhausted "Optimate" element.

Oligarchy necessarily involves ethnicity because the internal cohesion of an Oligarchy cannot be durably based exclusively upon considerations of material advantage. There must be included transcendent elements based upon shared "Ideals" (ideology and/or theology) and the ties of kinship. The logic and history of political economy indicate that no formulation of the rightly-understood-interest of individuals amidst large populations has or can be formulated -- thus that the governance of such populations is based, ultimately, upon Lies and Violence rather than Law -- and that the Oligarchs cannot be bound amongst themselves or with respect to their inferiors by universally-applicable, abstract and merely formal rules.

So, Oligarchies typically arise by virtue of the Violent conquest of one people by another -- the Masters of the Lie, however, govern chiefly by virtue of their gifted employment of the alternative. The Marxist, Freudian, Boazian, and Libertarian diversions have durably served them well in so establishing themselves astride the Stupid Goyim, from whose regimes said Cattle are to be progressively "liberated" -- when, that is, they are not being conscripted under false pretenses for a stampede over a regime standing in resistance. One distinction that seems to have gone un-noticed amidst discussion of the origins of the Universalist falacies is that the old native Oligarchy, established by Colonial and then Imperial Violence, was straighforward in its imposition of Abolition and Prohibition. The Utopianist and Alarmist impositions upon us by the Judeo-Communists and Judeo-Fascists have been accompanied and maintained by a bodyguard of Lies and a Thought-Police State.

Marc, perhaps you might consider emmigrating. Iceland seems to be among the most likely to stay majority white, if that's your primary concern.

I wonder if antiracism is an essential component of Brahmanism, or a discardable position.In their early years most Brahmins were racists, because that was normal back then. They were always somewhat egalitarian though.

Oligarchy necessarily involves ethnicity because the internal cohesion of an Oligarchy cannot be durably based exclusively upon considerations of material advantage.If you are correct that's good news, because of the data I posted earlier showing that jews in America are outbreeding themselves out of existence. Unfortunately, I don't think you're correct and believe that the Brahmins will keep trucking with nary a setback.

In their early years most Brahmins were racists, because that was normal back then. They were always somewhat egalitarian though.

I'd argue that they are no less racist now -- they just make anti-racism a fashion statement, which suggests to me that racial egalitarianism is an incidental aspect of Brahminhood, if not Universalism.

No Brahmin but perhaps a true fundie is thrilled when his daughter dates a black guy. Only a sap like Jimmy Carter sends his daughter to a DC public school.

I also happen to share MM's concern about possible outbreaks of violence due to mass migration. But attempts at holding back the tide of people seeking a better life with force are only going to make things worse.

[NN wrote:] Oligarchy necessarily involves ethnicity because the internal cohesion of an Oligarchy cannot be durably based exclusively upon considerations of material advantage.

[tggp wrote:] If you are correct that's good news, because of the data I posted earlier showing that jews in America are outbreeding themselves out of existence.

[NN:]

The specification was in regard to elite Jewry, long interbred with the Anglo-Saxon aristocracies who have thus adopted the Judaic self-concept of being a "light unto the nations" -- of which they are no longer a part, as they virtuously pursue their globalist agenda, liberating the rest of us from our pathetic provincialism. (David Rockefeller has publically expressed himself to this effect in more euphemistic terms).

[tggp:]

Unfortunately, I don't think you're correct and believe that the Brahmins will keep trucking with nary a setback.

[NN:]

It appears that you fail to take my point that the "Brahmins" are not our governors, not our Oligarchs.

They are, as they realize of themselves, public servants, however elevated. They are employees.

Thus the ethno-cultural persistence of Jewry in the mass and of the Brahmins as a cosmopolitan technocratic class are separate issues.

It is also important to remember that immigration is not a random phenomenon. It takes a peculiar type of person to uproot their life and move to a very foreign country, particularly to a place where you do not even speak the language. The Irish Clans would actually get together and vote off families when the harvest came up short. The result, at least in america, is a nation genuinely composed of people with a genetic predisposition to not fit in. This no doubt causes some problems, but given the choice I would much rather have the millions of mexicans who risked life and limb to come here than the same number from the group who didn't bother.

who have thus adopted the Judaic self-concept of being a "light unto the nations"That's a Puritan conception, they developed it just fine without jewish intermarriage.

They are, as they realize of themselves, public servants, however elevated. They are employees.A king may claim he serves the people, but unless there is a mechanism of control the claim is dubious. The Brahmins, jew and gentile alike, do not have some other master (excluding the State which may employ them), they simply serve their own ideals.

Thus the ethno-cultural persistence of JewryHow are they persisting if they are interbreeding at such high rates and their children no longer considering themselves jewish?

NeoNietzsche, you might want to familiarize yourself with your namesake's opinions of antisemites. And you might consider that if the Jews are so all-powerful and you keep saying such mean things about them, perhaps they'll figure out who you are from your IP address and come through the wires to stand astride you. Google hosts this blog, the founders of Google are Jewish, and I hear they keep very thorough records.

The Brahmins, jew and gentile alike, do not have some other master (excluding the State which may employ them), they simply serve their own ideals.

I prefer NN's explanation. His does a better job of explaining why the Third World has been permitted to flood the West, and why the flood continues in spite of its horrible consequences and the objections of the citizenry.

tanstaafl, are the consequences of immigration different for jews compared to Brahmins in general? Is their reaction different from Brahmins in general? The answer to me seems to be no and no, which is why MM's explanation is preferrable by Occam's Razor.

I don't think this is UR's best post. That honor belongs to your early post about the five castes in the US. Your B-D-H-O-V analysis is an original and useful contribution.

The strenght of this "Why I am not a white nationalist" post is your argument that WN is counterproductive. But this is also where you falter. One of the problems is your entirely subjective (not to mention solipsistic and tautological) point that neo-Nazism is scaries than neo-Stalinism. I could simply counter with an opposite and equally subjective assertion. In fact, I do find the far Left much more scary than the far-Right. I find Che T-shirt phenomenon scary and the ACLU more objectively harmful and more subjectively loathsome than I do Skinheads.

Two reasons for that: One: the far-Right is fringe and by definintion self-limiting. Meanwhile, the far-Left is rich, global, and amorphous. And their fanaticism is both more ambitious, and more credible. (I am a Slavic Eastern European-born American, so German or, say, Swedish nationalism would be a limited and well defined threat to me; but the Borg-like EU is not a self-limiting project.)

And Two: given the state of the world as it is, right-wing impulses are defensive and self-preservationist in scope, thus on at least one level, I can feel sympathy toward them, while the left wing impulses constitute aggression and conquest.

Another point in your post: that an OV restoration is inherently evil (cf. your Nazis comparison): this is a red herring. A well-ordered society, defined by ethnicity and tradition, is not murderous by definition. But Brahmin-Utopianism probably is. In other words, Hitler was an aberration. Stalin and his many imitators was the norm.

[NN:] ...who have thus adopted the Judaic self-concept of being a "light unto the nations"

[tggp:]

That's a Puritan conception, they developed it just fine without jewish intermarriage.

[NN:] A "Puritan conception" adopted from the Jewish OT and initially taken as the setting of an example of purity. Let us say that intermarriage reinforced and further mutated this tendency -- now toward the hypocritical imperial imposition of self-conceived virtue upon the rest of the world.

[NN:]

They are, as they realize of themselves, public servants, however elevated. They are employees.

[tggp:]

A king may claim he serves the people, but unless there is a mechanism of control the claim is dubious. The Brahmins, jew and gentile alike, do not have some other master (excluding the State which may employ them), they simply serve their own ideals.

{NN:]

"Ideals" cultivated in them by a media and academic community long-ago subverted and performing as a theocracy and thought-police apparatus.

"Brahmins" thus undergo a selection process in attaining their status as mere chief administrators. The agenda of that selection process is set by their masters and employers who subsidize and direct said theocracy and thought-police state.

You seem to be under the mis-impression that administrative apparatuses have intrinsic agendas in detail. An imperial army must be told when and whom next to conquer. An economy must be configured for pursuit of war or peace, for protection or for "free trade". A bureaucracy must be instructed as to whose interests must be favored and whose ox must be gored -- for there is no complete and coherent formula for the administration of justice.

[tggp:]

Thus the ethno-cultural persistence of Jewry

How are they persisting if they are interbreeding at such high rates and their children no longer considering themselves jewish?

[NN:]

I did not specify the degree of their persistence. The point was, rather, that you had confused that issue with the persistence of the "Brahmins" -- who, contrary to the present mis-conception of the circumstance, are not our indispensable governing Oligarchs.

Since migration, from a purely economic point of view is a Pareto-improvement (those who stand to win from it win more than the losses of those who stand to lose), financing for breaking through barriers will always be available.

If it were not a Pareto-improvement, people that stand to lose from immigration would just pay would-be immigrants to stay at home, as this payment would still be less than the damage caused by immigration. Since this is not the case, force is used to hold back a Pareto-improvement. Money will be used to breach the dams and the resulting torrent will sweep everything aside that stands in its way.

Since migration, from a purely economic point of view is a Pareto-improvement,

From a purely economic point of view, migration is good for immigrants, and for a small social class within the host country. It's a losing economic proposition for the majority of the host-country's population.

I also disagree with your economic determinism. There is also a Parteto-relationship between providers and consumers of the following products: a) chlid prnrography; b) cigarettes for minors; c) insider trading tips.

Yet, because of our society's moral and traditional norms, banning those three things is deemed more important than allowing them, so there is the will and recources to successfully ban them.

It's virtually impossible for any 17-year old to buy a pack of cigarettes anywhere in the United States because the sales clerk and his employer are heavily fined. Purveyors of kid porn and insider traders go to prison, Pareto-optimality be damned.

NeoNietzsche, you might want to familiarize yourself with your namesake's opinions of antisemites.

[NN:]

Mission accomplished, long ago -- thanks for your concern.

[mtraven:]

And you might consider that if the Jews are so all-powerful and you keep saying such mean things about them, perhaps they'll figure out who you are from your IP address and come through the wires to stand astride you. Google hosts this blog, the founders of Google are Jewish, and I hear they keep very thorough records.

[NN:]

Thanks again for your concern. But I have already considered this prospect. The Google Jews have no need to do as you sarcastically suggest, since they know that their goyim are none but meliorist Weenies and patriotarded Morons upon whom I can have no effect.

For those who are interested, Inductivist's most recent post is on Jewish ethnic solidarity(perhaps he's a visitor to this site).

As usual, he provides some stats, in this case indicating that Jewish ethnic loyalty is about the same as that of Mexican-Americans, in other words, higher than the US average for ethnic solidarity, but lower than that of blacks.

But then, you know how shameless the Jews are about lying when it's to their advantage.

The Brahmins, jew and gentile alike, do not have some other master (excluding the State which may employ them), they simply serve their own ideals.

[NN:]

It is precisely the century-long inconsistency and evident hypocrisy involved in the application of these alleged "ideals" -- always to the particular ends of Jewry -- that indicate discriminant influence from a superordinant element.

Heretic Professor Kevin MacDonald (now being shown the instruments of torture by the Inquisition) has examined this pattern at length in his infamous trilogy.

With regard to your question put to tanstaafl, the Brahmin Jew's priority is and must be the ongoing cosmopolitanization/deracination of (and hypocritical discrimination against) the native society, by virtue of immigration (and other policies), and the consequent elimination of the possibility of an effective collective reaction -- whatever the personal or other collective costs involved. I believe that some public figure has given expression to this formulation in the recent past.

Jean Marie Le Pen, when asked by an political opponent how long "les Beurs" must wait to be considered French, replied "When their parents bones have lain in French soil for 500 years, then they are Frenchmen."

Daniel: "I don't have revulsions about having a granddaughter with distinctly Asian features."

If everybody does what your child has done, there will be no one of true European descent.

Daniel: "Neither do I think that your hostility to this idea [miscegenation] is in any way rational."

I want my people to live, which is a natural and moral desire. You don't care, which is unnatural and immoral. Why would I be other than hostile to your unnaturalness and immorality?

Try to understand, Daniel, that between life and death there is not some comfortable place where you can close up your eyes and ears, and shut out the consequences of your inaction. The complacent are with the traitors, for they are not with those who are loyal.

"I don't have revulsions about having a granddaughter with distinctly Asian features."

There are degrees of miscegenation. Derb's half-Chinese daughter, for example, looks like an all-American girl (if JD is reading this: I'm just reacting to the family photos you publish and promote; all the best to you and yours, man!)

On the other hand, a Euro / Afro mix produces a child that hardly resembles his or her European parent; it might be a (non-Black) human universal, and not just a White thing, to loathe the idea of one's daughter being with a Black male.

Guessedworker said:I want my people to live, which is a natural and moral desire. You don't care, which is unnatural and immoral. Why would I be other than hostile to your unnaturalness and immorality?

You can define "my people" to be your immediate family, your extended family, your tribe, your friends, your city, your nation, your race, or all of humanity. Why are some of these more moral or natural than others? Why should anyone give a good god damn if their genes end up mixed up with people from farther away than their local patch of land? We are a sexually-reproducing species, mixing up our genes is what we are supposed to do. So in fact, it's your point of view that is the unnatural one. White nationalists and racists often appear to be the products of inbreeding even as they are promoting it as some kind of norm.

If it were not a Pareto-improvement, people that stand to lose from immigration would just pay would-be immigrants to stay at home, as this payment would still be less than the damage caused by immigration.What mechanism would be used? As Bruce Bueno de Mesquita points out, as long as people have the option of taking your money and doing whatever they want, there is no solution.

Heretic Professor Kevin MacDonald (now being shown the instruments of torture by the Inquisition) has examined this pattern at length in his infamous trilogy.Who has shown him "instruments of torture"? E. O. Wilson, Larry Summers and James Watson all seem to have received more hatred than him. The rest of your comment does little to clarify your point.

Can you explain why virtually every Left/Liberal avoids the kind of "mixing of genes" with people from faraway lands as far as his own family is concerned?Do you have any data? I know Paul Krugman married a black woman and Duke's "ego tripping" Afrocentric poet laureate had a liberal jewish father.

I don't have a daughter. If I did, I would hope that my reaction would depend on the actual character of the particular black man in question. That sounds rather trite, but there you go. I'd much prefer her to bring home a black artist or doctor or academic than a white racist moron.

Why is it always black men/white women that come up in these questions? If it's genetic mixing you are worried about, then the other direction is just as bad.

I'll repeat TGGP's call for evidence for the assertion that Left/liberals always mate within their in-group. Obviously you just made that factoid up. In my experience the rate of inter-racial marriage (mostly white/asian) in upper-class liberal circles is extremely high.

I'd much prefer her to bring home a black artist or doctor or academic than a white racist moron.

Artists or doctors, black or otherwise, are rare. What if he's an average representative of his racial community?

A bit of a tangent.... how fair is it of white women to take a successful black man out of black women's small pool of potential husbands?

Why is it always black men/white women that come up in these questions? If it's genetic mixing you are worried about, then the other direction is just as bad.

I don't know, but it does. Maybe one's son's "poaching" another tribe's women is better than having yours poached.

Another reason could be that children tend to take on the father's cultural identity. I know two WM/BF married couples; in each case the black wife is, for a lack of bettter word, white-acting and their kids identify with white norms.

On the other hand, I know countless BM/WF couples, and it's a whole different story. In every case, the WF acts "ghetto." Also, Black males have a horrid track-record with abandoning their women after childbirth and/or with financial mismanagement.

I'll repeat TGGP's call for evidence for the assertion that Left/liberals always mate within their in-group.

To clarify, my assertion was that Leftists (like all non-Blacks) prefer that their daughters did not mate with black males. The evidence is both anecdotal (I travel in Leftist cirlces) and indirect: Leftists with families avoid schools and neighborhoods where blacks live in large numbers.

Heretic Professor Kevin MacDonald (now being shown the instruments of torture by the Inquisition) has examined this pattern at length in his infamous trilogy.

[tggp:]

Who has shown him "instruments of torture"?

[NN:]

I specified the "Inquisition". Have you so little exposure and resistance to formal indoctrination in the contaminated and inverted pretense at social science promoted in the temples of the theocracy that you know not whereof I speak?

[tggp:]

E. O. Wilson, Larry Summers and James Watson all seem to have received more hatred than him.

You give examples of men who married black women.Which is relatively rare. I bet the rates for WF/BM is higher, with hippie chicks like Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.

I was referring specifically to white Leftists' feelings about their daughters marrying black males.Lefties are the ones who care so much about "feelings", which are not objectively observable permitting their claims to be unfalsifiable. Most of us aren't lefties and the ones who are don't try that talk here, so who cares.

how fair is it of white women to take a successful black man out of black women's small pool of potential husbands?Don't tell me your heart bleeds for black women.

Another reason could be that children tend to take on the father's cultural identity.I don't know. In judaism the rule is you're jewish if your mother was. My father's father was raised episcopalian, he married a catholic and because she was more religious (as women typically are) she had the kids raised catholic.

Also, Black males have a horrid track-record with abandoning their women after childbirth and/or with financial mismanagement.Then it's likely the kind of women they attract are rather trashy in the first place. I don't want to go too far in generalizing though, I've got an aunt who dated a black guy in college who beat her and followed her around when she tried to move, and she seems as responsible as the rest of that side of the family (which is admittedly characterized by excessive drinking, but that's about it). Oddly enough, even though she's a police officer now she's still probably the most liberal of the clan.

To clarify, my assertion was that Leftists (like all non-Blacks) prefer that their daughters did not mate with black males.I agree that it is true in general that people tend to prefer their own, though this mostly manifests through female choice, and males are willing to take what they can get. The exception is asian females, who don't seem to prefer their own that much, leading to higher rates of dating with white males. See here.

Like I said earlier, there are degrees of miscegenation. White/Asian ain't what the noise is about.It seems just as relevant to jewish ethnocentrism.

I specified the "Inquisition". Have you so little exposure and resistance to formal indoctrination in the contaminated and inverted pretense at social science promoted in the temples of the theocracy that you know not whereof I speak?So you don't have any links showing negative consequences he's faced?

"Since Mearsheimer and Walt are bête noires for Wisse, it is worth pointing to some of the examples they provide: Israel is an expansionist state whose leaders were not satisfied with the original partition of 1948—a time when Jews comprised 35% of the population of Palestine and controlled 7% of the land. Israelis "continued to impose terrible violence and discrimination against the Palestinians for decades" after the founding of the state, including ethnic cleansing after the 1967 war and, according to Israeli historian Benny Morris, an occupation based on 'brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation, and manipulation' (p. 100). Mearsheimer and Walt also point out the horrors of the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the wanton destruction of the bombing of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. They also show how Israel has aggressively promoted regime change throughout the region, using the power of the United States harnessed by the Israel lobby."

"Wisse not only sees Israel as too timid, she argues that the Israel lobby in America is also weak. Her basis for this is that Edward Said, a Palestinian critic of Israel, held a position at Columbia University, and his right to speak out on Middle East issues was supported by some Jewish academics. Apparently for Wisse, the existence of even a few marginalized, powerless critics is a sign of the weakness of the lobby — never mind its stranglehold over Congress and presidents."

"After all, Israel is by far the preeminent military power in the region and can easily act to preempt the development of WMD by its enemies, including Iran. And as a nuclear power, it could inflict huge costs on any enemy who even contemplated destroying it. It also has the world's one remaining military superpower completely at its bidding, so that it's difficult to envision a worst case scenario in which Israel is decisively defeated."

So -- where are Judeo-Gentile "Brahmin" Universalist "ideals" evident but in radical contradiction thereof amidst this manipulation of critical "American" foreign policy by Jewish money on behalf of a particularist racist apartheid terrorist state?

Ah yes, the Jews are history's perennial victims of their own inimitable virtue and have thus accummulated a vast treasure of global moral authority as such -- in Utopian Egalitarian Universalist terms -- but for which, inexplicably, the Palestinians, in particular, must pay. Doesn't compute. Looks like Jewish money, rather than "Brahmin ideals" (which perversely amount to mere White cultural masochism anyway) run the show at the top.

I specified the "Inquisition". Have you so little exposure and resistance to formal indoctrination in the contaminated and inverted pretense at social science promoted in the temples of the theocracy that you know not whereof I speak?

[tggp:]

So you don't have any links showing negative consequences he's faced?

[NN:]

Just got several off Google. Try "Kevin Macdonald" and "professor" It seems, rather, that your answer to my question is in the negative.

"Jacob Laksin has written a general critique of my work for FrontPageMagazine.com. To the extent that this article is based on any rational criticism at all, it relies on a compendium of the criticisms that I have already replied to on this website. The main technique is to present quotations from my work devoid of context and devoid of the evidence that I use to back up what I have written. It therefore relies on people not having read my work and on accepting the conventional wisdom on all things related to the role of Jews in the culture of the West. Particularly egregious are the charges that my writing is 'unabashed anti-Semitism' and 'stylized bigotry.' Such comments are nothing more than attempts at intimidation — effective because they serve as a warning of the consequences to those who attempt to understand and call attention to Jewish power and influence."

"The Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday called for an investigation into the campus activities of Kevin MacDonald, a Cal State Long Beach psychology professor whose writings about Jews have been used to support the views of white supremacists."

http://www.davidduke.com/general/2084_2084.html

"Jewish Extremists Target Professor Kevin MacDonald

"The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) has launched a full scale attack on Professor Kevin MacDonald. Here is an excellent letter from a Jewish professor about the attacks on Prof. MacDonald:

"As a Jewish professor who has read Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy (a work of immense and impeccable scholarship), I must say that he is right. In fact, he quotes many prominent Jewish leaders that say exactly what he says. Somehow, if a Gentile professor simply quotes Jewish leaders he becomes an 'anti-Semite,' if that is true then what are the leaders themselves?"

"As you read this, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is interviewing some 40 students, faculty, and administrators at California State University–Long Beach, where I am a tenured Professor of Psychology, for an upcoming hit job on me and my research...

"[Before this event]...I also knew that I would get hate mail and maybe a couple of death threats. But that’s to be expected. And it’s all rather abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits to my website are up and more people are buying my book.

"But then came the SPLC and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent an email to the entire Psychology Department—except me—asking why they allowed an 'anti-Semite' to teach there. The result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do about me and my work, and intense meetings of the departmental governing committee.

"Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

"I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups — who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

"My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.

"This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It’s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence."

mtraven: White nationalists and racists often appear to be the products of inbreeding even as they are promoting it as some kind of norm.

. . .

I'd much prefer her to bring home a black artist or doctor or academic than a white racist moron.

As a Jew, a group renowned for its inbreeding and sensitivity to criticism, you certainly seem inordinately willing to throw around slurs, both in this thread, and previous ones, and even over at my blog. It's not enough for you that White nationalists are widely despised. You try and belittle them further. Such a proud mensch you are.

When I copied my address book into a new one (yeah, I still use paper), what I observed with a certain amount of surprise was that 95% of my acquaintances are at least bilingual and over 98% either already have at least one degree or are currently pursuing their first one.

Now I checked it again.

All the blacks in my address book, without a single exception, are university graduates and I am pretty sure that their IQs are well above 100.

Lawyers, artists and doctors are not at all rare among the people that I know. More than half of the people I know are either engineers or scientists.

Sure, my circle of acquaintances is not a random selection of people, but I think that nobody selects their friends at random.

mtraven asks the commonly-asked question: Why should anyone give a good god damn if their genes end up mixed up with people from farther away than their local patch of land?

At the individual level, Ethnic Genetic Interest (or our genetic investment in kinship) is not alone in being valued only when its significance is understood. Further, understanding it is challenging for some, because it requires a certain knowledge of the racial context in which genes become valuable.

For example, race-deniers frequently posit Western culture as the value they want to preserve. But in doing so, they are immediately caught on the horns of the racial dilemma they detest, since no other race but Europeans has an interest in preserving Western culture (even if it could).

In fact, anything that unlocks valuables is a legitimate individual interest. The preservation of European Man, which is a preservation of his genes, is an extraordinarily powerful interest, when you understand it.

For the most part, of course, EGI is pursued even if we never understand or value it, because it exists regardless and most people do not make maladaptive reproductive choices. Life's purpose is the transmission of genetic information through time, by means of reproductive, mortal phenotypes. Human genetic distinctiveness is a product of adaption, and therefore an inevitable line of life-continuity.

But that's perhaps a little detached and hifalutin for some drunk young white women wondering whether she should let Leroy go any further. Maybe she's a college kid, and listened to her professor writing off the natural stigma, shame and isolation she and Leroy Junior will experience after his birth as mere prejudice and racism, la-la-la.

But she will experience many personal costs, such as her child not looking like her. Probably, though, she will stick with the prof's official version, maybe rebelliously asking mtraven's question: "Why shouldn't I have done it? Why was it wrong?"

It was wrong, comes the reply, for all the reasons you already know, and will have to face up to for the rest of your life.

Those that are intelligent enough to understand and value EGI can make their life choices accordingly, and avoid negative consequences. Some of those that aren't will learn Nature's lesson another way.

So -- where are Judeo-Gentile "Brahmin" Universalist "ideals" evident but in radical contradiction thereof amidst this manipulation of critical "American" foreign policy by Jewish money on behalf of a particularist racist apartheid terrorist state?

Ah yes, the Jews are history's perennial victims of their own inimitable virtue and have thus accumulated a vast treasure of global moral authority and entitlement as such -- in Utopian Egalitarian Universalist terms -- but for which, inexplicably, the mortally-offended Palestinian and Muslim world, in particular, must pay with brutal treatment as colonial aborigines.

Doesn't compute. Looks like Jewish geld crossing the greasy palms of men of convenient opinions in the Congress, rather than curiously counter-productive "Brahmin ideals" (which perversely amount to mere White cultural masochism anyway) run the show at the top.

Since migration, from a purely economic point of view is a Pareto-improvement (those who stand to win from it win more than the losses of those who stand to lose), financing for breaking through barriers will always be available.

It might be Kaldor-Hicks efficient, but given the high externalities, maybe not. After all, there are lots of manual laborers stranded in the States already. Since they're not here legally, the marginal cost of becoming a criminal is lower for them.

I'm not sure what fraction of immigrants are part of this group, and what fraction are high-income, well-educated professionals who offer positive externalities. Even so, it isn't Pareto-optimal if even one person is made worse off, so unless every immigrant is either a) the lowest-paid member of their profession, or b) doing something entirely new, you'd have to assume they're displacing a native, and have to accept Kaldor-Hicks efficiency as the highest reasonable standard.

So -- where are Judeo-Gentile "Brahmin" Universalist "ideals" evident but in radical contradiction thereofMM has already discussed how Universalist ideals are nonsensical and are constantly contradicted by Universalists as the situation may warrant. Our support for Israel despite the unpleasant things their government has done doesn't strike me as being that different from other client states during the Cold War or the current Global War on Islamic Extremism (though as with Israel I think MM overstates the crippling effect American Universalists have had on the Pakistani regime).

particularist racist apartheid terrorist state?Israel has Arab Muslim representatives in its Knesset. Not apartheid by my definition (though this would be one of the last blogs to consider "apartheid" to have negative connotations!).

which perversely amount to mere White cultural masochism anywayOnce again, don't jews qualify as Whites for all the awful effects of Universalist/Brahmin ideals?

FrontPageMagazine.com[...]The Southern Poverty Law CenterOh no, not them! Those are the big guns! Nobody has ever opposed them unscathed! It's not like they cry wolf every ten seconds about people who then proceed to keep on truckin'.

We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.What a wuss. He sounds like a liberal. He didn't face any actual discipline or punishment but he's upset that people don't like him because of things he said. I've discussed social sanction on this blog before. "instruments of torture", ha.

At the individual level, Ethnic Genetic Interest (or our genetic investment in kinship) is not alone in being valued only when its significance is understood. Further, understanding it is challenging for some, because it requires a certain knowledge of the racial context in which genes become valuable.Do you have any critique of Gene Expression on Frank Salter?

the mortally-offended Palestinian and Muslim world, in particular, must pay with brutal treatment as colonial aborigines.If you actually want to argue against colonialism, go ahead. I'd like to see Mencius argue in favor of it to a non-Universalist. Something tells me you won't though.

Sorry I was late in getting to this, Marc: And me moving to Iceland would affect the global dwindling of the European peoples how...?Are you really that concerned with low Russian birth-rates (Russia west of the Urals is European)? You can be confident that Iceland will remain as it is and if you live there you can be assured your children and their children will grow up in a European society. Perhaps then from out of the ashes of the rest of the world destroyed by whatever they will emerge like Lif and Lifthrasir.

This is perhaps the most honest discussion of Universalism I've ever seen on this website. Though I can see that you might miss that and be bored if you assume Universalism is all about crypto-calvinist Christian interests and has nothing to do with Jewish interests.

It's not enough for you that White nationalists are widely despised. You try and belittle them further.Uh, yeah. If you don't want to be despised, don't hold despicable opinions. If you don't want to be belittled, I'd stay off the Internet, that's what it's for.

This is perhaps the most honest discussion of Universalism I've ever seen on this websiteUnfortunately, I kind of agree. What is the accusation of "universalism" but the old smear of "cosmopolitanism" deployed by Stalin against the Jews? MM has defined his class of Brahmin/Universalists in such a way that the Jewish component of it is awfully unmistakably strong, if not the whole story. So despite his own disavowals of anti-semitism he's going to attract a lot of that kind of extremely unpleasant support for his ideas.

What is the accusation of "universalism" but the old smear of "cosmopolitanism" deployed by Stalin against the Jews? MM has defined his class of Brahmin/Universalists in such a way that the Jewish component of it is awfully unmistakably strong, if not the whole story. So despite his own disavowals of anti-semitism he's going to attract a lot of that kind of extremely unpleasant support for his ideas.

Yes, the old smear that keeps popping up over and over and over again throughout time and space. Anti-semitism - that extremely unpleasant abnormal psychological defect that afflicts only non-Jews. It must be genetic.

Yes, the old smear that keeps popping up over and over and over again throughout time and space. Anti-semitism - that extremely unpleasant abnormal psychological defect that afflicts only non-Jews. It must be genetic.

Yes, the old conspiracy that keeps popping up over and over and over throughout time and space. The Jewish conspiracy - that extremely potent world-girdling menace that only Jews are capable of sustaining. We must be better than you.

Yes, we run the world, and it's your fault for being degenerate weaklings.

So -- where are Judeo-Gentile "Brahmin" Universalist "ideals" evident but in radical contradiction thereof...

[tggp:]

MM has already discussed how Universalist ideals are nonsensical and are constantly contradicted by Universalists as the situation may warrant...

[NN:]

The implication of which is that such self-contradictory, counter-productive, and confused practice of putative "Universalism" is not that of sincere "Brahmin" Universalists but rather that of an alien Oligarchy hypocritically pretending to be Universalist for the sake of the advantage of both sides of an issue. Communist Jew in your country -- Nazi Jew in his own.

[tggp:]

particularist racist apartheid terrorist state?

Israel has Arab Muslim representatives in its Knesset.

[NN:]

Which, of course, is perfectly useless in perpetual minority, absent enforcement of an elaborate Bill of Rights.

[tggp:]

Not apartheid by my definition...

[NN:]

If you are satisfied with pretense.

[tggp:]

...which perversely amount to mere White cultural masochism anyway...

Once again, don't jews qualify as Whites for all the awful effects of Universalist/Brahmin ideals?

[NN:]

And once again, they do not, in terms of a vital consideration previously explained as the desireability of demographically eliminating the potential for yet another popular organic rejection and ejection of Jewry from the premises.

[tggp:]

...the mortally-offended Palestinian and Muslim world, in particular, must pay with brutal treatment as colonial aborigines.

If you actually want to argue against colonialism, go ahead. I'd like to see Mencius argue in favor of it to a non-Universalist. Something tells me you won't though.

[NN:]

In fact I would argue against colonialism and in favor of imperialism -- but that distinction and the reasons for opposing the former are tangential to this discussion. The point, of course, was not as to the merits but rather as to the non-Universalist hypocrisy involved, which betrays the alien Oligarchic impetus of the existence and maintenance of the rabidly particularist state of so-called "Israel".

Yes, the old conspiracy that keeps popping up over and over and over throughout time and space. The Jewish conspiracy - that extremely potent world-girdling menace that only Jews are capable of sustaining. We must be better than you.

[NN:]

In mastery of the Lie -- where we achieved mastery with Violence, in our day, long past.

[ad:]

Yes, we run the world, and it's your fault for being degenerate weaklings.

[NN:]

More true, as to fault, than evidently you know. What a stupid tribe you would be not to take advantage of this bovine herd of Weenies and Morons.

OK, that didn't work. Try this, an MR search page with a list of references to "Salter".The links were fine, which is not to say the content was worthwhile. They seemed to have their own theory about gene frequencies worth preserving (heresy to Dawkins style selfish-gene types) that was contrary even to Salter. I think their assumptions about carrying capacity (which they even tried to use as units, humorously enough) were questionable. To me a lot of it just comes off as "Da collahds is goin' aftah ou' white wimmins!", which godless discussed a more immature version of here.

Yes, the Jewish component of our ruling class is awfully unmistakably strong. Your response is to blame anti-semites. Priceless.He was blaming Mencius for a framework apt to appeal to anti-semites. mtraven is a lefty and hence disagrees with Mencius on how the world actually is.

The implication of which is that such self-contradictory, counter-productive, and confused practice of putative "Universalism" is not that of sincere "Brahmin" UniversalistsThey are both sincere and contradictory, and this is not the case only with issues relating to jews. It is the inevitable result of politics the mind-killer. And as MM has well pointed out, this was the case with Universalism in its ultracalvinist form well before there many jews involved.

Which, of course, is perfectly useless in perpetual minority, absent enforcement of an elaborate Bill of Rights.I don't know much about the Israeli constitution (although I hear they have a very powerful Supreme Court), but England doesn't have even that, much less a bill of rights. It also has parliamentary representatives of minority ethnic groups whose growth rate is well below that of Israeli Arabs. Is Britain then an apartheid state? I thought the term was supposed to mean something.

And once again, they do not, in terms of a vital consideration previously explained as the desireability of demographically eliminating the potential for yet another popular organic rejection and ejection of Jewry from the premises.The peasants in America have had pitch-forks for a helluva long time, and there have been no pogroms. Americans are some of the most philo-semitic people on earth, and the immigrants are far more anti-semitic.

The point, of course, was not as to the merits but rather as to the non-Universalist hypocrisy involved, which betrays the alien Oligarchic impetusYou appear to find hypocrisy far more unusual and revealing than I.

so-called "Israel".That's an usual one. Do you live in "so-called America"?

In mastery of the Lie -- where we achieved mastery with Violence, in our day, long past.I'd say Israel is pretty damn good at violence, although they claim their secret edge is that their opponents are Arabs.

"Plaid Cymru leader Ieuan Wyn Jones voiced this resentment towards the government in London when he declared that Wales was 'a socially-excluded underclass created by Margaret Thatcher and abandoned by Tony Blair' "

[tggp:]

The peasants in America have had pitch-forks for a helluva long time, and there have been no pogroms. Americans are some of the most philo-semitic people on earth, and the immigrants are far more anti-semitic.

[NN:]

But the opposite impression, and evidence of implicit anxiety, is cultivated by relentless myth-making promotion of Holocaustiana.

[ttgp:]

They are both sincere and contradictory, and this is not the case only with issues relating to jews. It is the inevitable result of politics the mind-killer. And as MM has well pointed out, this was the case with Universalism in its ultracalvinist form well before there many jews involved.

[NN:]

He is mistaken. The rank hypocrisy evident in the supposed practice of this "Universalism" first emerges with the intrusion of elite Jewry:

The Roundheads did not assist Catholic efforts to retain and resume the Throne.

The Puritans did not sponsor houses of ill repute.

The Abolitionists did not trade in slaves.

The Prohibitionists did not operate speakeasies.

Jewish Capitalists, however, subsidized Bolshevism.

[tggp:]

so-called "Israel".

That's an usual one. Do you live in "so-called America"?

[NN:]

Yes. It is properly referred to as "Greater Judea," after the practice of naming a polity for the tribe of its Oligarchy (Angle-land, Frank-reich, Chin-a, Mexic-o. etc.)

[tggp:]

In mastery of the Lie -- where we achieved mastery with Violence, in our day, long past.

I'd say Israel is pretty damn good at violence, although they claim their secret edge is that their opponents are Arabs.

[NN:]

Let us not quibble over whether "Lesser Judea" is more the product of diplomatic falsehoods and manipulations than of its terrorist exploits. We would agree that the history of Jewry, since the messianic insanity of the rebellions against Rome, has been one of commercial and ideological penetration and exploitation of other societies -- commendably so, by the lights of meliorists entertained by Jewish propaganda as to the details of the process.

You don't know what you are talking about. JW Holliday is personally connected to Salter. His writings at MR flow from that connection.

Don't launch an attack on what you don't understand. You are Jewish, right?

godless (and, for that matter, his "cognitive elitist friend, Razib) is a Desi ethno-centrist, and is profoundly indisposed to the notion that white Americans have an interest in excluding him from their presence - and in Razib's case, his genes.

"Saletan is a Jew, who married a Jew, who is proud of Jews and being a Jew, who tells us the solution to the world's race problems is to intermarry. In isolation it might be considered simple hypocrisy. I believe it is part of his group's conscious strategy to weaken other groups, especially Whites, so I call it dissimulation."

i think tggp has covered the fact that jews *do* intermarry at such high rates that you might see a non-violent end to what you would call the 'jewish problem' in a few generations - just be patient! (by intermarriage, i just mean with other white non-jews, but from personal observation i think there is a lot of jew-male on asian-female action, for a variety of obvious reasons).

i think this all stems from a category mistake, your thinking that 'groups' can have a conscious strategy. only folks can. and the jews i know - i live in ny, so i know a few - do not consciously want to destroy their gentile host culture through subversive immigration policies, etc. however, there are some seemingly universalist-secular jews i've met who worry about jewish intermarriage, which is a bit creepy, as they would be the first to shout down a white who wouldn't marry non-whites, but they are definitely in the minority (the jews who most strongly oppose intermarriage would probably sympathize with your opposing intermarriage, and for similar reasons).

But you can't beat one fiction with another. The cure for Universalism is not the creed that Universalism hates most. It is a clear and simple understanding of the real principles of political, economic and military organization in human societies.

[NN:]

I would say that such understanding is that men are governed, ultimately and unavoidably, by Lies and Violence, Priests and Nobles, ideologues and soldiers.

Thus, someone's particularist agenda will necessarily be involved. Traven has already dismissed libertarian universalist misconceptions, to which you might resort, as to the self-regulatory nature of "Capitalism" -- and your idyllic depiction of traditional society, while not without a widely-ignored element of truth, does not resolve the issue.

Looks like elite Jewry's messianic/meliorist agenda slides nicely into the top of our otherwise incomplete theoretical and historical structure. Their's is our theocracy, faith, and pillar of state such as has been found indispensable in the West since its founding amidst the residue of the Roman Empire. (See the listing of the "Faustian Pacts".)

Isn't it wonderful and ironic how appealing to and "liberating" a people, a'la Marx, Freud, Boaz, Friedan, etc., also destroys the hated Goyische Kingdoms according to the Promise?

You might refresh yourself on J.K. Galbraith's The New Industrial State as to how implicit oligarchical/oligopolistic collusion {involving, [shudder] "conspiracy in restraint of trade") is inevitable and is performed in a modern industrial economy surviving and evolving out of laissez-faire cutthroat competition and disastrous monetary instability.

You might also consult The Triumph of Conservatism, by Gabriel Kolko, for a veiled account of one of the earliest episodes.

The fact that you are not privy to or ignorant of the process does not justify your stylishly facile incredulity and denial.

Interesting post, but you have far too high an opinion of yourself as a writer. Some of the people you deride are far and away better wordsmiths than yourself. You display too much circular reasoning wrapped in stiff, sophomoric prose. A little more historical research would probably do you so some good.